Pwning the Papacy
Regular Member
imported post
Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?
If Pittsburgh becomes 'a city of the first class', I could be arrested for open carry and given a charge of Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia having never set foot in Philly.
Another question: does a statute title have any legal affect on the nature of the law it proceeds to describe? If not, "Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?" may be easily invalidated.
6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia. No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: 1. such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or 2. such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).
Okay, the above notion is ridiculous based on finding other "a city of the first class" mentions, but my question now is:A question about "a city of the first class" -- people like to think that is specifies a type of city, yet the title clearly specifies one city: could class mean classification, essentially, where the classification is the single city of Philadelphia? Where is there a legal definition of "a city of the first class"? 6102 doesn't define it!
Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?
If Pittsburgh becomes 'a city of the first class', I could be arrested for open carry and given a charge of Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia having never set foot in Philly.
Another question: does a statute title have any legal affect on the nature of the law it proceeds to describe? If not, "Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?" may be easily invalidated.